Re: Cameras

> > I'm sorry you feel that way.  I've had excellent experiences 
> > with the APS film that I've shot while hiking.
> 
> In a one-time-use only, disposable unit???

I don't take OTUCs hiking because I can't imagine having only one
roll of film available!  I've used them occasionally for picnics
and parties and whatnot, and I do QA and bug fixes with a variety
of film lying around the department, which includes film from 
OTUCs.  The OTUC images are similar in quality to what I get 
from the cheap little KB20 that I keep in my car.

> If you're really concerned about weight, no APS camera can beat 
> the small digital cameras that are out there today.

But for the same weight, the APS camera is much, much cheaper, 
which for me is a big deal.  And both of the ones I have are
weatherproof.  Now, give me a 3.1 MP or better digital camera 
with a zoom and a panoramic function, which weighs less than six
ounces, can take 400 exposures with no more than four more ounces
worth of extra batteries and memory cards, is weatherproof, and 
costs less than $100, and I'll gladly set my T700 aside for it.

And, to be fair, my willingness to shoot APS is in part driven
by the fact that I get free film and processing.  I'd've spent
much more than $300 by now in film and processing if I had to
pay for it all myself, which would make me much more willing to
take my digital camera along when I go hiking.
 
> In my experience, I've banged my cameras against so many cliff 
> faces while in the backcountry, I wouldn't trust one of these
> modern, plastic bodied, cameras. 

I carry my T700 in my front pocket while hiking, and it's 
weathered a few scrapes and many drenchings.  And I trust it to
survive a heavy rainstorm much more than I trust my digital camera.

> I myself have to wonder if once digitals give you good 5x7 (or even 
> 8x10's) for under $300 how much of a market will be left for APS.  

3.1 MP will give you 8x10 enlargements of quality such that digital
artifacts are invisible without magnification.  The Kodak DX3900 
that I use, which has a 3.1 MP sensor and a 2x zoom, is currently
advertised for sale on kodak.com for $299.  So the time you're
talking about is today.

As for what would happen, well, you've seen what Minolta is doing.
I still am unwilling to risk $300 worth of camera equipment in
the field, however; my rugged little T700 does just fine.

> Basically, APS can be characterized as a good system for no-nonsense 
> photographers who only fill their holiday album with small sized 
> pictures. 

Yep.  On that point, we agree.  But "small-sized" includes 4x10
or 4x12 pans, which essentially are 8x10 or 8x12 enlargements with
half the field masked out.  You get those for the regular price of
service prints.  And you can, in fact, make 11x14 or 12x18's that
will look just fine.  I'd avoid trying to make 20x30's, though,
but how frequently do most people do that?

> You've still got the lens issue.  The one-time-use camera is not 
> going to give you the quality.  

Quality of optics has been the big push in OTUC development over
the last decade, and Kodak at least offers several different
quality levels, the highest of which have optics comparable to
low-end reloadable cameras.  Which doesn't help at all, though,
if you buy the cheap Chinese model on sale at the gas station.

Again, I was recommending one-time-use cameras because the
original poster who asked the question wanted to know about
one-time-use cameras, not because that's what I use myself.

> I've seen APS processing at 400ASA... NOT a pretty site.

Half of the photos on my wall were shot with Advantix 400 film.
Expired Advantix 400 film, at that -- we get the leftovers from
the warehouse as our departmental film handout.

> Using a one-time-use APS camera???  What was the ASA of the film 
> used???  Indoor or outdoor pictures???  Processed where???  In your 
> in-house Kodak lab, or another high-end lab that changes their 
> processing chemicals frequently???  

What's on my wall was shot with my Advantix T700 or Minolta Vectis
S-1 (APS SLR), or in 35mm with a Minolta Maxxum 5.  The film that
I use depends on what's available from our departmental film
handout: sometimes, we have a lot of ISO 400, other times, we
have a lot of surplus 200.  I've even managed to scrounge some 
100-speed APS film, which I used for my August hiking trip.  Most
of the pictures that I take while hiking are, by definition, 
outdoor photos, though I do have some taken inside shelters or
on non-hiking occasions.

As for processing, I can either give my film to our wholesale lab,
who will process it for free but keep the negatives for the QA
department, or pay $2 at our local Wegman's to have it developed 
but not printed, keep the negatives, and make the enlargements 
myself on our one-hour lab equipment.  Most of the service prints
(including 4x12 pans) on the wall came from the wholesale lab; all 
of the enlargements were developed at the grocery store.  Our labs
follow the specs for when they need to change chemistry; I don't 
know how frequently Wegman's photo department does, but it probably
reflects the industry average out in the field.

If you're interested in indoor performance, two of the 12x18's 
that I have hanging side-by-side are closeups of my partner: one 
shot in Ektachrome 100 in daylight, and one shot in Advantix 400
inside my darkened car at night with flash.  Neither shows any 
visible grain, not that you'd expect that from the Ektachrome.

 -- Raccoon --
(again, these are my opinions only; I do not speak for Kodak)

--
Susan Davis <futabachan-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>